NANC Report Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG)

1. NANC Report Numbering Oversight Working Group(NOWG) June 20, 2013 Co-Chairs: Laura Dalton, Verizon Communications Karen Riepenkroger, Sprint Nextel

2. Contents • 2012 NANPA Performance Report • 2012 PA Performance Report • NOWG Leadership • Outstanding PA Change Orders • Outstanding NANPA Change Orders • NOWG Participating Companies • Meeting Schedule

3. Summary 2012 NANPA Performance Report The NANPA’s annual performance assessment is based upon: • 2012 Performance Feedback Survey • Written comments and reports • Annual Operational Review • NOWG observations and interactions with the NANPA

4. Summary2012 NANPA Performance Report NANPA’s rating for the 2012 performance year was determined by consensus of the NOWG to be Exceeded. This rating is defined below:

5. Summary2012 NANPA Survey Respondents The total number of respondents to the 2012 NANPA Survey was down from 2011. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the NOWG performance survey:

6. Summary2012 NANPA Performance Report • CO (NXX) Administration (Section A) • There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 65 as Exceeded • 53 as More than Met • 14 as Met • 2 as Sometimes Met • NPA Relief Planning (Section B)  • There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 57 as Exceeded • 39 as More than Met • 21 as Met

7. Summary2012 NANPA Performance Report • NRUF (Section C)  • There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 62 as Exceeded • 57 as More than Met • 22 as Met • 1 as Not Met • Other NANP Resources (Section D)  • There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 13 as Exceeded • 9 as More than Met • 8 as Met

8. Summary2012 NANPA Performance Report • NANP Administration System (NAS) (Section E)  • There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 45 as Exceeded • 34 as More than Met • 19 as Met • NANPA Website, Reports, and Industry Activities (Section F)  • There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 61 as Exceeded • 53 as More than Met • 31 as Met • 1 as Sometimes Met • 2 as Not Met

9. Summary2012 NANPA Performance Report • Overall Assessment of the NANPA (Section G)  • There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 28 as Exceeded • 18 as More than Met • 8 as Met • 1 as Sometimes Met

10. Summary2012 NANPA Performance Report The following is a summary of written comments that were provided by survey respondents: Significant praise for NANPA staff was a consistent theme throughout the survey. In many cases, the comments provided praise for individual staff members. The following recurring adjectives were used by multiple respondents to describe their experiences in working with the NANPA staff: • Timely, responsive, and professional • Courteous, helpful, and knowledgeable • Excellent, accurate, and dedicated

11. Summary2012 NANPA Performance ReportNOWG Observations All comments received from the annual survey were positive, and none suggested any areas needing improvement. After thoroughly reviewing the comments received, the NOWG concluded that the written comments indicated a very high level of satisfaction experienced by those who interacted with the NANPA.

12. Summary2012 NANPA Performance ReportNOWG Observations As in previous years, the 2012 survey results continued to reveal a high level of client satisfaction with the continued perseverance, professionalism, and expertise exhibited by NANPA personnel when performing their NANPA duties. The NANPA continued to consistently and effectively demonstrate their expertise as the custodian of numbering resources in all areas in which they were involved.

13. Summary2012 NANPA Performance ReportSuggestions The NOWG makes the following recommendations for NANPA’s consideration: • Continue to proactively search for ways to improve processes, educate customers, and enhance system functionality. • Continue to develop and produce instructional and training videos, such as “How to Request a Growth Code” on the NANPA website. • On semi-annual CIC report filing, send out a reminder notice similar to the NRUF reminder notice. The NOWG requests NANC approval of the report and requests the NANC Chair to transmit to the FCC.

14. Summary 2012 PA Performance Report The PA’s annual performance assessment is based upon: • 2012 Performance Feedback Surveys for the PA and RNA • Written comments and reports • Annual Operational Review • NOWG observations and interactions with the PA

15. Summary2012 PA Performance Report The PA’s rating for the 2012 performance year was determined by consensus of the NOWG to be Exceeded. This rating is defined below:

16. Summary2012 PA Survey Respondents The number of respondents to the 2012 PA Survey was up from 2011 with an increase in industry & other and the regulator respondents remained the same as in 2011. The following chart reflects the trend of respondents since the inception of the PA performance survey:

17. Summary2012 PA Performance ReportPA Survey Pooling Administrator (Section A) • There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 103 as Exceeded • 108 as More than Met • 35 as Met • 2 as Sometimes Met Pooling Administration System (Section B)  • There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 103 as Exceeded • 88 as More than Met • 63 as Met • 1 as Sometimes Met

18. Summary2012 PA Performance ReportPA Survey PA Website (Section C) • There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 60 as Exceeded • 76 as More than Met • 50 as Met • 4 as Sometimes Met Miscellaneous Pooling Administration (PA) Functions (Section D)  • There were four questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 87 as Exceeded • 107 as More than Met • 90 as Met • 4 as Sometimes Met

19. Summary2012 PA Performance ReportPA Survey Overall Assessment of Pooling Administrator (PA) (Section E)  • There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 37 as Exceeded • 43 as More than Met • 16 as Met

20. Summary2012 PA Performance ReportPA Survey Following is a summary of written comments that were provided by survey respondents: • Outstanding praise for the PA staff was a consistent theme throughout the survey: • Provides excellent support, assistance, and technical expertise • Always prompt, helpful, and courteous • Professional, friendly, and responsive • Willing to go the extra mile to provide top notch service to their customers .

21. Summary2012 PA Performance ReportPA Survey Comments suggesting improvements were mostly isolated. Comments pertained to: • Process clarification questions • Suggestions for PAS and website enhancements

22. Summary2012 RNA Survey Respondents 2012 is the first year for the RNA Survey and the following chart represents the number of Industry & Other and Regulators that participated in this year’s survey. In subsequent years, the chart will reflect the trend of respondents with previous years.

23. Summary2012 PA Performance ReportRNA Survey Routing Number Administrator (Section A) • There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 18 as Exceeded • 1 as More than Met • 2 as Met • 2 as Not Met Routing Number Administration System (RNAS) (Section B)  • There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 17 as Exceeded • 3 as More than Met • 6 as Met • 3 as Not Met

24. Summary2012 PA Performance ReportRNA Survey RNA Website (Section C) • There were two questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 8 as Exceeded • 7 as More than Met • 4 as Met • 1 as Not Met Miscellaneous RNA Functions (Section D)  • There were three questions in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 14 as Exceeded • 2 as More than Met • 3 as Met • 3 as Not Met

25. Summary2012 PA Performance ReportRNA Survey Overall Assessment of the RNA (Section E)  • There was one question in this section to which respondents provided the following aggregated response ratings: • 7 as Exceeded • 2 as Met • 1 as Not Met

26. Summary2012 PA Performance ReportRNA Survey Following is a summary of written comments that were provided by survey respondents: • Outstanding praise for the RNA staff was a consistent theme throughout the survey: • Efficient, organized, and helpful • Polite and responsive .

27. Summary2012 PA Performance ReportRNA Survey Comments suggesting improvements were mostly isolated. Comments pertained to: • Suggestions for RNAS and website enhancements • Ability to upload or attach documents rather than sending an email.

28. Summary2012 PA Performance ReportNOWG Observations The NOWG concluded that the written comments were not indicative of any consistent performance issues for the PA and RNA, and in many cases provided significant praise for individual PA and RNA staffers.

29. Summary2012 PA Performance ReportNOWG Suggestions The NOWG makes the following recommendations for the PA’s consideration: • Continue to review internal training processes to ensure that consistency in understanding the processes and responding to service providers is communicated to the PA and RNA personnel. • Ongoing review of the PA and RNA websites to ensure accuracy and timeliness of data. • Continue to consider process or systems enhancements suggested by regulators and service providers. The NOWG requests NANC approval of the report and requests the NANC Chair to transmit to the FCC.

30. NOWG Leadership • The NOWG Tri-Chair position formerly held by Natalie McNamer is now vacant. • The current and future workload was reviewed by the two other tri-chairs. • On an interim basis, the vacant tri-chair position will not be filled.

31. Outstanding NANPA Change Orders

32. Outstanding PA Change Orders

33. NOWG Participating Companies • AT&T • CenturyLink • Cox Communications • EarthLink Business • Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission • Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission • Sprint Nextel • Verizon Communications / Verizon Wireless • Windstream Communications • XO Communications

34. NOWG Upcoming Meeting Schedule – 2013

35. NOWG Meetings • Contact the Co-Chairs for complete meeting or conference call details: • laura.r.dalton@verizon.com • karen.s.riepenkroger@sprint.com • Other meetings for the NOWG may be scheduled as needed beyond what has been identified in this list. • NOWG meeting notes and documents are posted at www.nanc-chair.org